What if D-Day Had Failed?

What if D-Day Had Failed? June 6, 2005: A Look Back at What Might Have Been

"Our landings have failed and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

Nothing was a sure thing on D-Day. (National Archives)

General Dwight D. Eisenhower scribbled these chilling words on a piece of paper shortly before D-Day, June 6, 1944. Ike’s naval aide, Captain Harry C. Butcher, found it crumpled in his shirt pocket weeks later and saved it for posterity. In contrast to a message of hope that Eisenhower had recorded before the invasion, which was broadcast on the BBC the morning of June 6 announcing the invasion of France, the world never knew until years later of its existence – and then only as an insight into Ike’s remarkable character.

Subscribe Today

Another anniversary of that historic day is upon us – the 61st of the greatest military operation of its kind in the history of warfare. This was the date when American, British and Canadian troops launched the greatest battle for freedom ever fought. They called it Operation Overlord, and it marked the beginning of the most important western battle of the Second World War. The success or failure of Overlord would determine the course of the war in Europe.

Hindsight and the passage of time often evolve into the deepening of already established beliefs about historic events. And, while the focus of our remembrance is quite properly on the drama of the invasion, it also leads to, I believe, a tendency to take the success of D-Day too much for granted. Of course, we are fully cognizant that D-Day was a costly and bloody military operation; that Omaha Beach was nearly lost the morning of June 6 and held only by the bravery of the GI’s pinned down there under murderous fire. Such scenes are etched into history and our collective memory through photographs, books, oral histories and films such as The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan.

History, however, can sometimes mislead us into false perceptions. D-Day might have failed for any number of valid reasons. One of its perceptions is that it was always destined to succeed; yet what is rarely ever discussed or written about is the compelling possibility that D-Day might actually have failed – and what the consequences of that failure might have been.

Is it possible Rommel could have forced an Allied surrender, as he did in 1940? (National Archives)

What follows is not a fanciful supposition but a sobering look at the inevitable consequences of an Allied failure on June 6, 1944.

The truth is that it was never a certainty that Overlord would succeed. Of course, no commander undertakes a military operation of the magnitude of Overlord without confidence in its success. However, given the enormous obstacles that had to be overcome, Eisenhower unquestionably not only recognized that failure was entirely possible but also prepared in advance to accept full responsibility.

A brief look at the daunting challenge Eisenhower and his planners had to accomplish in 1944 reveals why failure was possible. If the D-Day landings were to succeed, each of the following criteria had to be fully met:

Plan and successfully carry out the largest amphibious operation in the history of warfare.

Land over 150,000 troops on D-Day by sea and by air on a strongly defended hostile shore.

Accomplish this while at the same time deceiving the Germans over where the Allies would invade.

Successfully execute this extraordinary operation even though – until the very last minute – the actual site of the invasion was the most heavily guarded secret on the planet, kept from all but the key invasion force commanders.

Individually, each of these prerequisites held the potential to fail; collectively, they represented a very high risk. World War II amphibious operations were all perilous. Sicily, Salerno and the numerous landings in the Pacific were all testaments to the complexity of such endeavors, particularly when the unpredictability of Murphy’s Law was added to the mix. The Sicily landings, for example, were plagued by numerous unexpected and unforeseen problems that included inexperienced transport pilots and lack of aerial discipline, so-called "friendly fire" from Allied ships at sea, high winds and smoke from fires burning on the island. Likewise, Salerno was nearly lost as the result of faulty planning and Mark Clark’s decision not only to ignore the advice of his naval commanders and forego a pre-invasion bombardment, but also to embark the landing craft from far too great a distance from the beaches.

Before the Normandy landings, D-Day was nearly postponed until at least July by bad weather and it was only thanks to the most important and accurate meteorological forecast in the history of warfare that Eisenhower was able to sanction its launch under minimally acceptable conditions.

On this 61st anniversary I’d like to share with you some rather different thoughts about D-Day, written in 1994 by the esteemed British historian, Alastair Horne in his book, Monty: The Lonely Leader, 1944-1945 (published in the US by HarperCollins and in the UK by Macmillan, 1994).

On reopening the files on Overlord, 1944, one’s immediate reaction is: What a staggering risk! Across the years, it now comes across as a much nearer-run thing . . . than one had previously realized. There was absolutely no margin for error, and the penalties for failure would have been inestimable . . . With the brilliance of hindsight it seems inconceivable today that the Allies could then still actually have lost the war. Yet history has a way of springing surprises. There were at least three ways in which the OVERLORD landings could have been defeated: by misfortune, by lack of resolve or by a bad plan incompetently executed.

As we know, there was neither lack of resolve, a bad plan or incompetence in its implementation. Misfortune, however, was always the X-factor in the D-Day landings. As Horne notes, a sudden change for the worse in the weather could have swept away the invasion force much like it did the Spanish Armada in 1588. Rommel’s presence might likewise have made a difference. For example, it is doubtful he would have waited for Hitler to awaken late on the morning of June 6 to request permission to move the panzer reserves to the beaches. Moreover, even good plans go awry and each of these and other factors singly, or collectively, could have defeated the invasion.

Consider the consequences of defeat on D-Day. The Allies would have lost their almost irreplaceable fleet of landing craft . . . Britain would have sacrificed her last available army. It would have taken at least another year, well into the summer of 1945, before another invasion could have been mounted . . . largely by Americans . . . Hitler would have been developing his deadly new jet aircraft, and new technology would have enhanced the striking power of his U-boats. Possibly (though improbably) his scientists might have developed an atomic bomb. But, with certainty, Britain would have been hammered unmercifully by Hitler’s V-weapons, constantly increasing in numbers in the Pas de Calais and the Low Countries and largely immune to air attack.

The face of Europe would be much different if D-Day had failed (National Archives)

By the late summer of 1944, the V-1 and V-2 "buzz bomb" attacks would have left Britain’s morale shakier than at any time since the Blitz. With the West temporarily neutralized, it is not inconceivable that the German Army might have fought the Red Army in East to some sort of bloody stalemate.

. . . if an Allied repulse on D-Day did not actually lead to some form of victory for Hitler, at best it would have meant another costly year of war, ruinous for Britain, the extinction of the last remaining remnants of European Jewry through completion of the Final Solution, culminating almost certainly with the employment of the first atomic bombs in the summer of 1945 — on Germany, not Japan. Sweeping through a ‘nuked’ Germany, the victorious Red Army would have stopped nowhere short of the Rhine. Lost to Communism, Europe, and the world, would have been a very different place today.

This chilling scenario and its dire consequences is all the more reason to reflect – and to marvel – at the success of the remarkable event which took place in Normandy that fateful June day in 1944 when valiant soldiers, sailors and airmen changed the course of history.

37 Comments

X
11/23/2011

A Red Europe and the US reverting to isolationism. What a different world it would have been.

try reading a book called “the twilight men,” by otto basel. translated from german, it’s a difficult read. it depicts a world in which the axis won the war. it was scary. the us was divided between germany and japan. this could have been the outcome of a failure at normandy.

Absolutely. Failure at Normandy certainly doesn’t equal German victory, though, without the concerns of a second front (At least for a while) it may have freed up German resources to defeat the USSR. In the end, the US would have certainly dropped nuclear weapons on Germany, continued their advance through Italy and Southern France (Let’s not forget Operation Dragoon) and defeated Germany (With or without the Russians).

The Russian spring offensive would have still occurred, the Allies might have still been able to launch a second offensive later in the summer with German divisions transferred to the East weakening their western defenses and the Americans would have had an atomic bomb to drop on the Ruhr in August 1945.

If that was true, then why did Gen. Eisenhower, before the invasion had begun, write two statements: one announcing the success of the D-Day landings (the historically well-known statement) and one in which he takes full responsibility for the invasion’s failure?

Maybe the Red Army would have been victorious, maybe. But it is worth mentioning that the Germans pulled the bulk of their armored forces from the East to fight in France just at the moment when their forces were dangerously overextended, a disability that gradually became apparent that summer in Stalingrad. It wouldn’t have taken much to prevail in the beginning of that battle, when the German army faced only 30k largely ill-trained and disorganized troops.

First time I’ve heard this kind of take on the consequences of an axis victory at Normandy, the fairly limited amount of related fiction I’ve read imagines some kind of stalemate or cold-war between the US and Germany. This scenario of potential soviet advantage looks more plausible at first glance.

I wonder, though, if the Allies were repelled on D-Day could it also be likely that FDR would have lost the ’44 election, with the ironic buck stopping there? Perhaps the resulting tensions between FDR and the military could have opened the door to public allegations of the President’s foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, true or not.

Would a Dewey administration continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars rapidly developing the atomic bomb whose design was largely still on the drawing board? Faced against Me-262′s, V-1s, and V-2′s, perhaps the US would redirect resources to development of more conventional and reliable weapons, e.g. jets and higher yield incendiaries. The bomb would still get done, but at a pace reflecting a delayed imminence of an invasion of Japan due to losses in Europe.

Victory would still be achieved by the continued destruction of German industry while America continued to increase war production and efficiency, which Dewey was an advocate for in official capacity.

Fractures may have also formed in the alliance with the Soviets, due to a changed mood in Washington less sympathetic to Communists. Either from a change in politics or the simple matter of W. Europe and the Mediterranean taking complete precedence over support for the USSR. With the Russians caught in offensive formations, there could even have been a repeat of Barbarossa, though on a more limited scale closer to German frontiers.

And finally mix in a very possible dead HItler by Summer of ’45. Maybe sooner. he would not have tunneled himself underground so quickly and maybe even resumed public appearances/speeches following a failed D-Day, making him an easier target for assassination. If not, given what’s known about his medical care, a victory at the Atlantic Wall would not have cured his Parkinson’s. There would still be a race to see who gets to surrender first to the West once it was confirmed that he was really dead this time, for sure.

An increasingly war wary US, a desperate England, a Russia left to fend for itself, and a legitimate and recognized Flensburg gov’t-type regime in a post-Hitler Germany suggests a brokered peace/ “conditional” surrender may have been possible between the West and Germany, more so than the US nuking western Europe. Even if they showed Ike the door after D-Day failed, I doubt there was any American general who would have supported the use of atomic bombs in Europe unless as a matter of last resort. So, we’re back to the old hypothetical US-German cold war again.

Sorry for hijacking the page like this, this was just a really fun premise to think about. I have a new addition to my bookmarks, great site!

I believe the Americans would if D day failed have a cold war with either a German or Russian dominated Europe just like the book Father
land. The other option being the American using Atomic bombs dropped
by B29bombers while the Germans would use He177 bombers, V 1 and V 2 missals to deliver nerve gas on European and British cities. In which case the British, Germans and other Europeans should be thankful they where not gassed nor nuked.

It’s true if D-Day failed,then the U.S would have been forced to use those Atomic bombs on Germany first and forcing another Hittler asasination attempt from the Germany military High Command that would have popular support after the second bomb that would have succeeded .Finally wherever the Red Army might have been at the time the first dropped would have stopped them dead in their tracks ,giving Stalin pause and maybe deterring him from even touching Germany if the Red Army wasn’t there already,so starting the Cold War early and getting his spies to acererate the theft plans for copying the Manhattan project and production of the stolen B29 bomber.

Finally perhaps a second limited landing might have occurred,but certainly without Eisenhower as th leading general,However those Atomic bombs are the key for the west to force enough internal chaos for the german military to rise up and kill Hittler themselves with forcing the SS to surrender or die or better yet leave them for the Russian to deal with.Finally on a conventional war for not the he Russian were going to have to finish mauling down the Germans on the battlefield down to defeat even with more lost of life and a Cold War still on the table without them having any part if Germany to use in the game.

D-day was far more important in relation to the cold war (here I exaggerate a bit), the Russians were pretty much knocking on Hitler’s door by the time the allies made landfall on Germany.
however the absence of western control in Europe would have very likely would have returned america to the principle of minding its own.
This would have left Britain and a few capitalist states isolated in Europe, probably soon to fall to communism from USSR influence. Eventually this would lead to communism becoming a major power and threatening the USA. Eventually this could lead to the world becoming communist.

A very interesting read, but as with any “what if”, once you start speculating there are so many different roads a different story might go along.

If D-Day had failed, it most likely only could have failed within the first 24 hours of the invasion. Once the beachheads were secured there was nothing the Germans could do to dislodge the Allied forces on a strategic level. Different choices there might have shortened or lengthened the campaign. Henceforth, I believe if a German victory in Normandy would have happened it had to happen within the early hours of the battle. As Rommel pointed out, to defeat the enemy at the waterline.

It is hard to imagine what the consequences would have been in terms of casualties, moral, politics, strategy and momentum. Amongst the casualties I suppose would have been most members of the 82nd and 101st US Airborne divisions, as they would have been the most difficult to extract. British 6th Airborne possibly might have been able to reconnect to the beaches and pull out that way, but then again, that flank would have been the flank that the Germans had to press through in order to secure victory, so I imagine most of the division would have been capture or destroyed. The assault forces possibly would have gotten out, in some form of a bloodied nose.

The degree of defeat might vary on how the retreat was conducted. A hastly evacuation from Omaha for example towards Utah beach might have isolated the beachheads, allowing the Germans to defeat the British sector, but possibly allowing the Americans to settle in further North. The question then would be, would they be able to hold and expand the beachhead or also be forced to retreat. This might have been a costly defeat, whereas returning the units back to the ships along the entire coast might have speared a lot of men and equipment to fight another day.

Morale however would be on an ultimate low with the Allies. V1 and V2 rockets soon would have joined in to dampen the mood in England. Clarke’s march on Rome would have been forgotten and it is hard to tell what would have happened there, if the Germans felt they could reinforce that sector with units from France.

I suppose that there would not have been any campaigning in France for at least a year. New commanders would have to be found, I suppose Patton might have profitted and would have been involved in divising new plans for a new attack the next summer. As I read before, FDR’s re-election might not have been as easy, possibly giving different priorities to the war effort as a consequence. Maybe the Allies would have decided to widen the conflict to Spain and to lure the Germans that way – as a form of re-enacting Wellington’s campaign there against Napoleonic France.

At the same time, it might not have been certain whether Britain was able to continue the war effort. Before D-Day it was apparent to the British war planners, that once the Normandy campaign was over, that they had to disband units in order preserve the fighting capability of the army. Possibly, the British would have recalled units from Burma, once the Japanese offensive towards Imphal was stopped and the front there secured. However, I doubt that Indian Army units could have arrived in Britain in significant numbers before ’45. Once more, Churchill might have been forced to resign and a different War Cabinet might have preferred to end the conflict and preserve what is left of the British Empire and concentrate on its oversea areas instead, if it could guarantee peace in Europe. This naturally would have meant that American forces would have to leave Britain to respect British neutrality in the matter. America would then have been required to find a new stepping stone into Europe, if it cared to continue with the Germany first policy. The Italian theater would have regained importance, but due to terrain reasons would not have served the purpose for fast maneuverability. Moreover, supplying units there would remain awkward. France or Spain would remain preferential targets, yet assembling a sizeable invasion force to breach the Atlantic Wall and to take the gamble a second time at possibly worse odds would take greater courage, more preparation and in general would have been even more challenging and less likely to succeed.

On the Eastern Front, it is hard to say what exactly would have happened. The Russian Spring Offensive would have taken place shortly afterwards, yet it is questionable how it would have feared with a changed strategic situation. Germany at that moment could focus on a one front war, possibly reinforce the front soon enough after the offensive started and had the chance to bring the front to a stalemate possibly. The essential question here is, how likely was Germany to completely overstretch itself. It was doing so since Kursk in ’43 and as both the Allies and the Soviets were kicking their doors in the summer of ’44 it became a matter of time, but with a one-front war, a stalemate might have been a chance. Possibly with extraordinary luck, the Germans might have turned a retreat into a tactical victory by being able to mount strong counterattacks that could have made things difficult for the Russians. It is doubtful though, that Germany would have been able to mount another stategic offensive on the Eastern Front in ’44/’45 as manpower as well as resource shortages and I believe a continuation of the Allied bomber offensives on Germany would have kept German industrial output under control (at some stage the German war economy would not be able to improve its efficiency faster than what was being destroyed by the Allied bombers).

With regard to the nuclear bomb, as far as I know, the Allies relied to some extent on German uranium in order to manufacture the bombs for Japan, as the Allies themselves were still not able to mine the required amount quickly enough themselves. A bomb on Germany might not have happened before ’46, but once the Allies had it and if the war was still going on, they would have used it on Germany. The question here is, in coordination with Russia or not.

Also then the question is, how would have German morale developed. The army would have been in high spirits after defeating the long awaited Allied invasion. The Western Front would have been secured for the time being. Further fortifications would have been added to the one’s in place. The possibility of also halting the Russian offensive somewhere in Eastern Poland and possibly destroying large Russian armoured formations could have added to jubilant Germany in the summer of 1944. Yet, as bombing continues and the war continues despite the promise of a final victory, German morale might have dampened quickly in the autumn and winter to pre-invasion levels. Nuclear threat might have added, but then I wonder if anybody in Germany or in the world what the real dangers of a nuclear bomb were and are, and therefore could this have effectively influence moral? I doubt Germany would have surrendered despite having nuclear bombs being dropped on them. It might have caused fraction within the state, between those who felt the game was up and those who fanatically believed in the final victory. Some sort of weird civil war within German might have erupted, as different fractions would seek to gain power, in order to end the world war to save what remains of Germany. Hitler possibly would lead the SS and other fanatical units against elements of the Wehrmacht. I doubt that Berlin would have been the target, as neither was Tokyo. The Ruhr area would be an obvious choice and possibly Munich, a city that had not been hit much by the strategic bombing campaign in order to highlight and illustrate the destructive value of the nuclear bomb.
So for certain can be said, that Allied victory at D-Day preserved Germany from complete destruction and spared Europe at least a year of war, if the waring parties had not come to an alternative settlement before the Allied forces at developed a nuclear bomb. The victory in Normandy was a victory for democracy in Europe. It is needless to say that the post-war order would have been entirely different.

It seems apparent that if D-Day were to fail, the Red Army would clean things up for us. D-Day was engineered so that if we were to fail, we would have plenty of breathing room. Besides, most of the faults were in the orginization and transportation of troops and supplies.

A failed D-Day likely means the Soviets on the Rhine. Make no mistake: by 1944 the Russians are no longer the inept bumblers they were in 1941 and early-42. Three years of war, lend-lease, and total industrial mobilization of the USSR’s resources had turned the Red Army into a massive, well-armed, well-led, well-motivated, and experienced Juggernaut that out-and-out annihilated the German forces in its path during the Summer of 1944. Ultimately, they were halted by their own supply difficulties after huge and rapid advances more then German resistance.

The Germans on the Eastern Front did not even manage a retreat, they were simply obliterated and had to be rebuilt from scratch. Even with a failed D-Day, the transfer of German forces would be insufficient. Such forces would be thrown into battle piecemeal and be annihilated by the massive quantities of tanks and artillery the Soviets were now regularly and skillfully concentrating in huge numbers against the Germans.

I’ve read a lot of the books published on the Normandy fighting, including one of D’Este’s, and I don’t find much credibility in the notion that the invasion could have failed entirely. Could the Germans have defeated the invasion forces of one of the five beaches at the water’s edge? Yes. All of them? No. The Allies were going to get a lodgement; it was only a question of how large it would be.

Agreed, once it was decided to do a “broad front assault” instead of a “narrow” assault, or a market garden type operation (as proposed and lobbied for by Montgomery) it was extremely unlikely the German forces being able to push all 5 beaches. With allied air superority and naval superority… I think it was just unlikely. However, that doesn’t mean that weather couldn’t have done what the Germans military couldn’t.

I think an interesting scenario would have been the west not invading at all. Let the Russians attempt to invade. Germany, after losing many key fronts, diverts forces from France and Italy to support it’s overwhelmed Russian defenses, then Allied forces launch the attack on the beaches of Normandy. Worst case scenario, the Berlin wall doesn’t go up.

Very interesting point, Chris! The Soviets were making steady but slow progress toward the west. In May on 1944, they were still hundreds of miles from the Vistula River (as a first line of defense) and roughly a thousand miles from the Oder. Somewhere between the two is where the Germans would have started to sweat and move resources from west to east- maybe by fall of 1944. At that point, a Normandy invasion would have been a lot less costly and the Battle of the Bulge would not have happened. The road across France and Germany would have been a lot quicker with less loss of life. The allies also firmly controlled the Boot of Italy and could have ramped up bombing raids from the south as well as from the west.

The big winners of any D-Day failure would have been the Russians. The tide was already turning in the East and a demoralised US and UK (politically as well as militarily) would have opened the door for Russia to steam across Europe until they reached the English Channel.

All in all the war would have been extended by 3+ years. Some kind of secondary invasion to at least save France and the Low Countries from Russian occupation would have happened once it became apparent where the war was headed and would probably have succeeded given even more Nazi weaponry and men would have been moved Eastwards to battle Stalin’s forces.

As it is, the Nazis were fatally compromised by fighting on two fronts. Holding such a wide defensive posture as ‘Fortress Europe’ would inevitably fail for as soon as the Allies gained any kind of foothold on French soil (combined with their near total dominance of the air), the war was as good as over.

Lets not forget the southern front… by D-Day, the Allies were half-way up Italy. Probably more resources (from both sides) would have gone there. The Allies would have kept pushing north, and with the aim of going east of Switzerland towards Berlin.

The two American nuclear bombs used on Japan August 6 and 9, 1945, were made using uranium seized from a German U-Boat which had been dispatched in the closing days of the war in Europe to carry the uranium to japan. The captain instead chose to surrender his vessel.

Simply because the U.S. had not yet synthesized enough U235 to make a bomb, it is unlikely that the U.S. would have been able to introduce nuclear weapons in 1945 if the 1944 Normandy invasion had failed.

German victory on D day requires some definition to project the end of the war. Losing one of the beachheads or all French dirt? Anyone can conjecture. One thing I never understood after some study.

The beaches on Ohama and Utah was essentially untouched at H hour whereas deep naval fire and bombing frustrated a counter attack. Why did it take so long to assess and deliver knock out blows to the beach defenses? Those guys running across the sandy beaches needed immediate help. It was a very close affair and the butcher’s bill was high. Where was plan B and who made the decision to use M 1s but not point blank naval canon?

It is reasonable to conclude we may have lost these two toe holds. I do not think it would have significant altered the outcome of the war. Germany could not have sustained a two front war and the allies were too strong in Italy (and northern Europe if Normandy failed). Ditto for Japan in Asia. With the B-20 and A bombs, they had no chance.

The U.S. Navy had many ships literally anchored off of our invasion beaches providing direct fire support to the invasion troops. My father’s destroyer (USS Gherardi) did this mission for a solid week. It steamed to Southampton each night to reload ammunition and was back on station off of Utah Beach by sunrise.

Joshua Mathias
3/29/2016

Ever thought of D-DAY failing, Germany winning the race to the atomic bomb.The bomb would then first be deployed over Russia to eliminate the threat towards Germany from the East and to ease pressure on Japan as well.Japan and Germany would then turn all their military might together towards the U.S. and we all know how that would end. Total Axis world domination with the atomic bomb being deployed over USSR first followed by Britain and finally the United States. Who knows if the Germans would incorporate the idea of V2 rockets with nuclear tipped warheads into their U-boats which would make almost any place in the world a fairly easy designated target. Also the loss of D-day would eventually lead to Germany building up its Air and Naval power to an extent where they would be unstoppable.

The best way to work with counterfactuals is to start with the smallest possible number of initial changes – just one is ideal. Thus, let’s start with the single counterfactual assumption of Rommel on duty and quick to respond, with or without Hitler’s immediate approval. This could have happened, it was sort of a fluke that he wasn’t on duty at his post that day.

Were this single change to have happened, then the question becomes: how quickly would Rommel have realized that Omaha was the most problematic landing for the Allies, and which resources could he rush into there in time to make a critical difference? The German deployments were far from ideal and Hitler had hamstrung them to a considerable extent. Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that an on-duty Rommel would have done no better than the German forces did absent his leadership on D-Day. One thing is certain: If D-Day were to have failed, right there on Omaha would have been the point of failure.

A D-Day failure and withdrawal would have been a strategic disaster for the allies; there is no other way to put it. Another invasion attempt would have had to be months, if not a whole other year off. There would certainly have been further dramatic and far-reaching consequences. First, Stalin would have been outraged at the failure to open the 2nd front, and might have decided right there to disregard FDR and Churchill and wage his own war on his own terms and priorities. It should be noted that “unconditional surrender” were the terms that FDR invented with little input (and some discomfort) from Churchill and none at all from Stalin. The Soviets had a quite different perspective. They would have viewed their strategic priority as being the elimination of the German threat forever. Mere unconditional surrender wouldn’t have really been enough for that. Total conquest of all of Germany – especially a bloody conquest that resulted in a catastrophic reduction of the German population, certainly would have provided what they needed. The time line to bring this about would have been different without the 2nd front, of course. Berlin might have held out considerably longer, and it might have taken a while after that to reach the Rhine. I would point out that securing clear deep water access to the Atlantic and Mediterranean would have been another high strategic priority for the Soviets. The permanent occupation of Hamburg & Bremen, plus a secondary move deeper into the Balkans and maybe all the way through Greece, would give them what they needed. At this point, the Soviets would have been in a much more threatening posture to the UK and the US than they ever were during the Cold War. The UK would thus have been forced into permanent dependency upon the US, and the US would have had to remain extensively forward-deployed in the UK.Meanwhile, the remaining countries on the Western margin of Europe – France, Italy, the low countries – would have all ended up being effectively “Finlandized” at best.

Several here have speculated that the first US atomic bombs would have been dropped on a still fighting Nazi Germany in August 1945, and that does indeed seem likely. The thought of an instantly vaporized Adolph Hitler does provide one heartwarming moment in an otherwise bleak counterfactual scenario. Dropping the atomic bombs in Europe not that far from the Soviet front lines would also have made for quite a lesson for the Soviets, which would have no doubt been the intent.

It is likely that with the 2nd front postponed for months, and a Red Army marching toward destruction of the German Reich, the US would have re-thought the “Germany First” strategy and done what many had wanted to do all the way back to 12/8/41: make Japan the priority. If Germany might have lasted a little longer under this counterfactual scenario, the pace of action might have picked up quite a bit in the Pacific, with Okinawa having been taken at least several months earlier. In this case, though, and with the first atomic bombs slated for Germany rather than Japan, and with the USSR still totally focused on conquering Germany, I don’t see how the Kyushu invasion – and a massive bloodbath – could have been avoided. The US might very well have ended up with a million or more casualties before it was all over (and more than a few of we children of veterans wouldn’t be here), and Japan would have been little more than an empty wasteland. Once we had become engaged on the Japanese mainland, any possibility of a D-Day II would be gone, for we would have to throw everything we could into the Pacific theater.

So, by the end of the war – sometime in 1946 or 47 – both Germany and Japan would be utterly defeated and depopulated wastelands, with all of Germany being permanently occupied by the USSR and Japan being permanently (for all practical purposes) occupied by the US. Several German cities would be radioactive rubble. The UK would be bound tightly to the US, the rest of non-occupied Europe in “Finlandized” neutrality at best. The US/UK would be facing a much stronger and much more hostile USSR extended much further to the West. Eisenhower would be a disgraced nobody, and certainly would have never become President.

Beyond this, it begins to become more difficult to spin out the counterfactual scenario, because it could go so many different ways. The one thing for certain is that just about everything would be different from the reality that we actually live.

Even with Rommel at his best — the Germans still had little chance of overcoming some very significant communications issues. The Allies completely controlled the skies. Bridges and railways could not be relied upon.

How would Rommel have moved his Panzers to Normandy without exposing them to aerial assault? How would Rommel have managed to supply his army in a large scale, ongoing battle by the beaches?

Sponsored

Sponsored

Stay Connected

Sponsored

About ACG

Armchair General is the INTERACTIVE history magazine where YOU COMMAND and decide the course of action!

Every issue brings you articles on military history, analysis of current military and political events, and stories of real heroes among us today. Our authors include leading historians and analysts who lend integrity and credibility to this fresh presentation of historical and contemporary events. PLUS each issue contains unique interactive articles based on actual historical events in which YOU are the commander who must choose the best course of action for victory!